Transit Archives - Transform

Transform 2024 Ballot Proposition Guide

October 17, 2024/in Blog, Housing, Policy, Transit, Transportation/by Transform Staff

Climate crisis mitigation, affordable housing, public transportation, and racial equity are all on the November 2024 ballot. Below, we offer Transform’s positions on relevant propositions and measures that move our mission forward and help move the needle on these crucial, urgent issues. This guide includes statewide measures and local ballot initiatives in each region of the Bay Area.

As a 501(c)3, Transform can take positions on ballot measures but cannot endorse candidates. We worked with the Transbay Coalition and other allies to gather candidate questionnaires on sustainable transportation. You can find links to the questionnaires here.

How to vote

You can confirm your voter registration and track your ballot in the mail. You can also sign up for text alerts to find out when your county election office processes your ballot. As a reminder, you have until Tuesday, November 5, to turn it back in or vote in person.

Important dates to keep in mind:

October 21 is the last day to register to vote.
November 5 is Election Day, and polls are open 7:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. Find your polling place.

Short list of Transform positions on ballot propositions

Statewide

Yes on Prop 4

Yes on Prop 5

Yes on Prop 33

No on Prop 34

Local

SAN FRANCISCO Yes on Prop B Yes on Prop G Yes on Prop K Yes on Prop L	SOUTH BAY Yes on East Palo Alto Measure JJ Yes on San Mateo City Measure T
EAST BAY Yes on Albany Measure C Yes on Berkeley Measure BB No on Berkeley Measure CC No on Berkeley Measure EE Yes on Berkeley Measure FF Yes on Berkeley Measure W	NORTH BAY No on Fairfax Measure I Yes on Fairfax Measure J Yes on Larkspur Measure K Yes on Petaluma Measure Y Yes on San Anselmo Measure N Yes on San Anselmo Measure O

Detailed breakdown of Transform’s ballot measure positions

STATEWIDE

Yes on Prop 4: $10 billion for climate crisis mitigation
- Transform officially endorsed the Yes on Prop 4 Campaign early on. Prop 4 will make urgent investments in proven solutions for mitigating the deadly and destructive impact of the climate crisis. Without clean air and drinking water, people can not walk, bike, and roll safely. Vote yes on Prop 4. Supported by the California Green New Deal Coalition.
Yes on Prop 5: Lower the approval threshold needed for funding affordable housing and public infrastructure
- Transform officially endorsed the Yes on Prop 5 Campaign early on as well. Prop 5 will lower the voter approval threshold from 66% to 55% on housing and public infrastructure bonds. We urgently need to lower the systemic barriers to building new affordable housing and safer street infrastructure and this bond achieves that goal. Supported by Urban Habitat, Bike East Bay, East Bay Housing Organizations, and the California Green New Deal Coalition, among others. Vote yes on Prop 5, and please tell your friends to vote yes as well — this measure is crucial to allowing California communities to build a brighter future.
Yes on Prop 33: Remove limits on cities’ ability to adjust rent control regulations
- Voting Yes on Prop 33 repeals the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995. The Act currently prohibits municipalities’ ability to adjust rent control policies such as imposing rent control on new developments built after 1995. Prop 33 will also prohibit the state from passing future restrictions. The proposition does not impose any rent control provision but merely frees local jurisdictions to enact renter protections that work in their communities. While rent control alone is not the ultimate panacea for our region’s housing crisis, it is an important tool that has improved the material conditions of the most vulnerable communities by protecting them from displacement. Supported by East Bay Housing Organizations and the California Green New Deal Coalition
No on Prop 34: Restrict how the AIDS Healthcare Foundation can spend funds
- This proposition targets a single entity: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF). The organization has taken strong positions on tenant protections, earning the ire of the real estate industry. The requirements in this measure that nonprofit healthcare providers spend more on patient care might seem reasonable, but the qualifications written into the measure would apply to only one organization: AHF. It’s an attempt to stop AHF’s housing advocacy, and whether or not you agree with the organization’s positions, it’s a misuse of the proposition system that should not be rewarded with support. Opposed by East Bay Housing Organizations and the California Green New Deal Coalition. Vote No on Prop 34.

SAN FRANCISCO

Yes on Prop B: Funding for safer streets and shelter
- This bond measure would provide funding for public amenities, including community health centers, street and sidewalk safety, and more shelter or interim housing space. Supported by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition because of the funding for infrastructure improvements. Vote yes on Prop B.
Yes on Prop G: City funding to keep rental units affordable
- This would amend San Francisco’s charter and require the city to make annual contributions to an Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund for Seniors, Families, and Persons with Disabilities. The city already provides supplemental payments to landlords to create affordable housing units. We urgently need more, and this dedicated funding will help ensure San Francisco maintains affordable rentals. Vote yes on Prop G.
Yes on Prop K: Convert Upper Great Highway from a road into a park for people
- Prop K will create a permanent car-free space on the Upper Great Highway by Ocean Beach, allowing a safer and more joyful experience for people enjoying San Francisco’s shoreline. Advocates have fought hard for this critical amenity since a COVID-era closure was rescinded. Supported by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Vote yes on Prop K.
Yes on Prop L: Tax ride-hail and autonomous vehicle businesses to fund crucial transit operations
- SFMTA is facing an existential crisis due to a lack of funding. Prop L would contribute an estimated $25 million to critical transit operations, preserving Muni services and allowing people with disabilities, low-income families, and older adults to continue to travel around the region. Supported by Urban Habitat and the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. Vote yes on L.

EAST BAY:

Yes on Albany Measure C: Approve tax funding for sidewalks and pathways
- More funding is urgently needed that is specifically dedicated to safer street infrastructure. Supported by Bike East Bay. Vote yes on Measure C.
Yes on Berkeley Measure BB: Fund housing retention programs and expand tenant protections
- This measure, supported by Berkeley renters and the city’s Rent Control Board, strengthens renter protections and lowers the cap on rent increases. Urban Habitat joins us in supporting a yes vote on Measure BB.
No on Berkeley Measure CC: Limit and change tenant protections
- The mirror image of Measure BB, CC raises the cap on rent increases slightly and limits the power of Berkeley’s Rent Control Board. Urban Habitat urges a no vote on Measure CC and so do we.

*If both Berkeley Measures BB and CC pass, the measure with the most votes will win.

No on Berkeley Measure EE: Competing with Measure FF with less funding, no guarantees for safer street infrastructure
- Measure EE is in direct contention with Measure FF. Transform encourages you to vote no on Measure EE as it does not include a guaranteed dedicated revenue for safer street infrastructure and would also bring in less funding than Measure FF. We need to push for maximum funding for safe streets, not settle for potential scraps that are subject to political will. Bike East Bay opposes this measure. Vote no on Measure EE.
Yes on Berkeley Measure FF: Parcel tax to fund safer streets for all
- Measure FF is a proposed Berkeley parcel tax of 17¢ per lot square foot residential and 25¢ commercial that will fund paving activities across the city and require bike/walk plan implementation to ensure that smoother streets don’t just lead to more speeding. Bike East Bay supports this measure. Vote yes on Measure FF.

*If both Berkeley Measures EE and FF pass, the measure with the most votes will win.

Yes on Berkeley Measure W: Parcel taxes to support homeless services
- In 2018, Berkeley voters adopted Measure P, which raised the transfer tax on properties sold for over $1.5 million, with the revenue going to support homeless services. Measure W changes the formula. The tax increase, from 1.5% to 2.5% starts at $1.6 million and the rate increases progressively for higher-dollar real estate transactions. Supported by East Bay Housing Organizations. Vote yes on Measure W.

SOUTH BAY:

Yes on East Palo Alto Measure JJ:
- This measure would divert revenue collected from an existing 2.5% tax on gross receipts from a general fund to instead go towards rental assistance for tenants and other types of housing assistance such as affordable home ownership, affordable housing preservation, protecting residents from displacement or homelessness, and administrative expenses. The San Mateo Anti-Displacement Coalition and Urban Habitat support this measure. Vote Yes on Measure JJ.
Yes on San Mateo City Measure T: Allow San Mateo to build more housing by Caltrain and along key corridors like El Camino Real
- A great opportunity to rebuke outdated zoning and build more housing near transit, a key strategy to curbing intersectional climate and housing crises.

NORTH BAY:

No on Fairfax Measure I:
- This measure would repeal Fairfax’s current Just Cause Eviction Ordinance and Rent Stabilization Ordinance passed in 2022 and replace it with the state standards put forth in the Contra-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Opposition includes Canal Alliance, Public Advocates, Urban Habitat, and Tenants Together. Vote no on Measure I.
Yes on Fairfax Measure J:
- This measure would allow for investment in safer street infrastructure, with dedicated investment in protected bike lanes and safer crosswalks by schools. This funding would also unlock millions in additional federal grant support needed to continue to design and build safer streets for all roadway users. Supported by Public Advocates. Vote yes on Measure J.
Yes on Larkspur Measure K: Establish rent control in Larkspur
- Grassroots organizing brought this measure to the ballot. It will cap rent increases at 3%, or 60% of inflation — whichever is lower — and establishes other tenant rights. Supported by Urban Habitat and Public Advocates. Vote yes on Measure K.
Yes on Petaluma Measure Y: Extend Petaluma’s urban growth boundary
- This measure preserves farmland and encourages the kind of dense, infill development the North Bay needs to combat climate change. Sprawl is a major driver of climate-killing emissions; vote yes on Measure Y.
Yes on San Anselmo Measure N: Establish rent control in San Anselmo
- This measure caps rent increases for buildings with three units or more at 60% of inflation or 5%, whichever is less. Supported by Urban Habitat and Public Advocates. Vote yes on Measure N.
Yes on San Anselmo Measure O: Affirm tenant protection in San Anselmo
- This ballot measure confirms tenant protections already in place, such as compensation for evictions without just cause and rent control. Vote yes on Measure N to protect sensible tenant protections. Supported by Urban Habitat and Public Advocates.

Please share this guide with your network, and don’t forget to vote by Tuesday, November 5th!

Transform Transportation Advocate Speaks on Transit Month Panel

October 14, 2024/in Blog, Policy, Transit/by Laura McCamy

On September 24, 2024, Transform Transportation Policy Advocate Abibat Rahman-Davies was part of a panel on gendered perspectives on transportation advocacy and activism. The panel was part of a series hosted by the Transbay Coalition in honor of Transit Month and was moderated by Thea Selby, Co-founder of the San Francisco Transit Riders and Voices for Public Transportation. The other panelists were Lian Chang, a proponent of Prop L: Fund the Bus who has previously supported transit lanes through Faster Safer Geary, and Haleema Bharoocha (MPP), who helped lead Phase One of BART’s “Not One More Girl” campaign and spearheaded Transform’s Ride Fearlessly report on reimagining transit safety.

The panelists come to transit advocacy from different perspectives. Chang is a non-driver and a grassroots activist for transit, biking, and walking, while Rahman-Davies worked for a policy nonprofit and on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., before joining Transform. Bharoocha has worked extensively with youth through the Alliance for Girls and has often seen transit through a gendered lens.

Experience, advice, and hope

Bharoocha encouraged advocates not to focus too much on technical details and forget human issues such as navigating transit with a disability or a stroller. It’s okay to be a troublemaker and push on what’s important to you, even if it’s not well-received. Rahman-Davies concurred, noting that just because you’re the lone voice on something, it doesn’t mean you’re wrong.

Chang noted that, in the San Francisco advocacy community, which tends to skew White and cis male, it’s easy to feel like there’s only one way to do public comment, and that can be a barrier to participation. She learned to participate in ways that feel comfortable to her. That included making a casket for a model of a BART car and having a transit funeral, using her artistic skills to make an impact.

Chang offered a mom hack: recording a public comment from her son and playing it when it was her turn to speak. That gave her slightly shy child a chance to speak without hanging around for hours waiting to comment.

Rahman-Davies emphasized the importance of centering the people your advocacy is meant to lift up. “Never lose the north star of who you’re trying to help,” she said, and don’t cut deals just to get a result. Change takes time, and the results we want don’t always happen right away.

Bharoocha noted that there is space for everyone in transit advocacy. “We need you in this movement,” she said, referring to Deepa Iyer’s social change ecosystem map.

The panelists touched on a range of other topics, sharing experience and advice. Watch the full webinar.

The Train Has Gone Off the Tracks: People Are Speaking Up but MTC Is not Listening

October 2, 2024/in Blog, Transit/by Abibat Rahman-Davies

After SB 1031, a bill to fund Bay Area transit, was withdrawn, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) set up a special select committee to craft a regional transit measure that could gain wide support. The commission meets monthly through October to set up a framework for a new funding bill to be sent to the legislature at the start of the 2025 session.

On September 23, 2024, MTC held a meeting of the Transportation Revenue Measure Select Committee that should have produced a near-final version of the measure for ratification in October. Unfortunately, the meeting ended without consensus. While all members agreed that transit desperately needs to be funded, how exactly it should be funded has been up for debate. We understand the challenge of bringing together many diverse stakeholders with sometimes opposing interests, but it’s a challenge MTC must meet.

Contentious MTC meeting

At the September select committee meeting, members were asked to vote on two different scenarios that have been continually refined at each of the previous meetings. The Core scenario — which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties — has an opt-in for the other counties and is funded through a sales tax. The Hybrid Scenario (formerly the Go Big Scenario) includes all nine counties and aims to sustain current service levels and close operator-reported deficits with funding from a ½ cent sales tax combined with a payroll tax.

Disagreements came to a head as select committee members were asked to express their support for the scenarios through a gradient of agreement: 1 — strongly agree, 2 — have some reservations but agree, 3 — neutral but strong reservations, 4 — will go along but have strong reservations, or 5 — strongly disagree. The tallied vote showed virtually a tie between the two scenarios, with both scenarios around 3.8. This score reflects weak support, and many commissioners advocated for a third option that was not brought up for a vote: the Hunger Games scenario. That option would largely remove MTC from the picture, leaving individual counties and transit agencies to run their own, sometimes competing, funding measures. This level of disagreement further illustrates the deadlock on the committee on how to save our failing transit systems.

Turning a deaf ear to the public — and MTC’s charter

Which scenario the MTC special select committee will ultimately choose to save our transit systems is unclear, but what is clear is that many commissioners are out of step with what the community is demanding. The committee voted on the scenarios before public comments were even made, so their votes weren’t influenced by public input. In fact, during public comments, many commissioners left the room.

In explaining his vote, one commissioner, who voted “strongly disagree” for both scenarios, stated that while he wants to find a solution, he is not optimistic, and he doesn’t believe MTC is even the right place to create a solution to fund our transit system. However, according to California law, the role of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is “to provide comprehensive regional transportation planning for the region comprised of the City and County of San Francisco and the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.”(emphasis added). It’s precisely MTC’s primary role to solve this issue, so if MTC is not the right arena for this, then who is?

Regressive funding sources

Advocacy groups and many members of the public have called for a solution that doesn’t add to the financial burden that disenfranchised groups face. Yet many MTC commissioners have continued to push for scenarios funded either completely or mostly by regressive taxes such as a sales tax.

Progressive revenue sources like parcel and payroll taxes have strong community support. The committee removed the parcel tax because of concerns about overusing it, since it is a potential funding source for the housing bond.

The business community spoke up fervently against a negligible 0.18% payroll tax, claiming that it sent a bad message to Bay Area businesses. The commission seemed very concerned about the business community’s opposition to a payroll tax, and many commissioners spoke up in agreement with the business community’s disapproval of the payroll tax. However, many members of the public mentioned during public comment that they liked a payroll tax because they felt that businesses should pay their fair share toward the transit services they rely on.

Bay Area transit is regional — we need a regional solution

Keeping our transit systems fully funded and operating reliably is a regional problem that needs a regional solution. Unfortunately, during the select committee process and especially in the September meeting, many commissioners have been focused on their county’s benefit and fairness for their county, failing to see the big picture.

Many commissioners also continued to push for the Hunger Games scenario. However, people don’t use transit systems by county; they ride regionally. Someone might get on a bus in one county, connect to BART in another county, and then take MUNI or Caltrain at the other end. A failure of any of our transit systems would be catastrophic for the whole region, not just one county, so we need to solve this problem together.

In addition, multiple measures introduce multiple points of failure. We already fund big capital projects regionally, so we should be able to fund transit operations regionally.

Speak up for public transit

MTC’s October special select committee meeting will decide on the final solution to submit to the legislature. We need you to call in and tell MTC commissioners that they need to get the train back on the tracks. Ask them to listen to the voices of the people who will vote for the measure and of transit riders.

No one wants Bay Area transit systems to fail or be forced into drastic service cuts. The MTC must put forth a regional scenario that covers the deficit, is long-term, and is funded by mostly progressive revenue sources. Transform and our allies at Voices for Public Transit are working hard to support this scenario. We are deeply grateful to everyone who has come to meetings and spoken out. While the Hybrid (formerly Go Big) scenario is not the perfect option, it is a regional solution that would save transit operations, and you are the reason it is still being considered. Please come out one more time on October 21. Help us win approval for a regional solution.

September Is a Time to Celebrate Public Transit

September 4, 2024/in Blog, Transit/by Abibat Rahman-Davies

September is Transit Month, and it will be marked this year by events around the Bay Area. Transform’s Transportation Policy Advocate, Abibat Rahman-Davies will participate in a panel on transit advocacy as part of a series on gender and transit sponsored by the Transbay Coalition. Transit Month events include contests, transit to trail hike and bike rides, a pub crawl on Muni, a BART state concert, and much more.

But first, it’s worth looking at how public transit benefits everyone, even those who don’t use it.

Public transit is the backbone of the Bay Area

In our dense, congested Bay Area, public transit provides an inexpensive and efficient way to get around without worrying about traffic or parking. And those who do travel by car can thank transit riders for reducing congestion and easing the pressure on local streets and highways.

In 2024, 163,000 people ride BART on an average weekday. While BART’s ridership has taken a dip from pre-pandemic levels, it is on the rebound as ridership numbers continue to increase each year. That ridership represents less smog, fewer vehicle miles traveled, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and less need for parking at office buildings, destinations, and venues around the region.

About half a million people ride San Francisco’s Muni; about 135,000 ride AC Transit; and 23,000 ride Caltrain on an average weekday. VTA doesn’t have daily statistics, but it carried 21.4 million riders in 2023.

Ways to celebrate Transit Month

In addition to the many transit-centered fun activities planned for Transit Month, you can celebrate our rich transit ecosystem any day of the week. If you’re on the bus, thank your driver! Additionally, if you don’t normally take transit, try substituting the bus or train for your next outing.

See you on the bus!

Gendered Perspectives of Bay Area Transit – Event Series September 2024

August 30, 2024/in Blog, Transit, Transportation/by Nicolay Kreidler

We Still Have a Path to an Excellent Regional Transportation Measure — With Your Help

August 22, 2024/in Blog, Policy, Transit, Transportation/by Abibat Rahman-Davies

Representatives from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) joined a Voices for Public Transportation (VPT) meeting on August 21 to outline three scenarios under consideration for a regional transportation measure. Transform and VPT believe the Go Big Framework deserves strong support, while the other options fall short of what we need to ensure transit transformation. We’re rallying people who care about the future of public transportation in the Bay Area to attend the MTC Transportation Revenue Measure Select Committee meeting on Monday, August 26, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be held at the Bay Area Metro Center, 375 Beale Street in San Francisco, in the first floor board room. If you can’t attend in person, consider joining on Zoom or sending public comments by email to [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 23.

Here’s what you need to know about the scenarios MTC is considering and talking points to support a robust transit funding measure.

Core Transit Scenario: The opt-in option

This option would cover San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Mateo Counties, with an option for the other five Bay Area counties to opt in. It proposes a half-cent sales tax and would raise money to fund the agencies operating in those counties: BART, AC Transit, MUNI, and Caltrain.

MTC estimates this option would raise $540 million annually from these four counties and $1 billion if all nine counties opt-in. In this scenario, 10% of the funding would go to region-wide transit transformation projects. MTC would have to find additional funding to cover those projects in counties that don’t opt-in. The remaining 90% would initially shore up funding for transit operations before shifting entirely to county-by-county discretionary transportation spending.

Unfortunately, the Core Transit Scenario would not fill the broader operating funding need in a way that keeps our transit systems running without service cuts. It is hard to imagine that voters would vote to increase their taxes for a measure that would result in service cuts. While some flexibility for counties is needed, the Core Transit Scenario would give counties carte blanche on two-thirds of the entire measure without any guarantees that the money would be spent on needed investments in transit, walking, and biking as opposed to harmful highway expansion projects.

The Go Big Framework: A nine-county solution

The second scenario MTC is considering would raise $1.5 billion annually through a 0.54% payroll tax or a $0.28 per square foot parcel tax across all nine Bay Area counties.

This scenario would allocate 20% of funds to transit transformation, with 10% going to MTC for regional projects and 10% returned to counties. It would allocate 50% of funding to operators to maintain their 2023 levels of service initially, with amounts adjusted for inflation after that. The remaining 30% would be county-by-county discretionary transportation spending, known as county flex funds, for use on any projects included in Plan Bay Area. This could include road repairs, new bike lanes, or transit improvements, but it could also mean adding highways.

One of the sticking points in negotiating a region-wide measure is the desire of counties to keep the revenues raised locally rather than subsidizing operations in other counties. Transform is recommending a guaranteed 90% of the revenue raised in a county would be returned to that county over the life of the measure to address this concern.

While Transform opposes any regional transportation revenue going to highway expansion, we believe this is by far the best scenario presented by MTC and look forward to improving it further. It uses a progressive revenue source, gives a great deal of autonomy to counties to serve the varied needs of their residents, gives robust funding to transit transformation, and, most importantly, fills the transportation funding deficit.

Scenario Three: Going it alone

The final scenario is to abandon the project of a regional transportation revenue measure entirely. The MTC’s only role would be to seek authority for local jurisdictions to run their own ballot measures to raise revenue. This option would provide no transit transformation funding and wouldn’t guarantee the future of the Bay Area’s interconnected transit network. It would be particularly challenging for multi-county operators like BART and Caltrain and cities like San Francisco that could see three separate transit funding measures on the same ballot. Many Bay Area residents live and work in different counties, and funding a harmonized and fully operational regional transit network serves everyone’s needs. Further, putting multiple transportation funding measures on the ballot will confuse voters, making it more likely these measures would fail.

Speak up for regional transit transformation

MTC is hearing a lot of loud voices from different interest groups right now. They need to hear from those of us who want a revenue measure that will protect our regional transit system, share the costs proportionately, with those of greater means contributing the most, and bring about transit transformation, encouraging more people to ride instead of drive.

If you can attend in person, attend virtually, or submit a public comment, here are questions and talking points Transform and VPT suggest raising to MTC:

The number of counties that will get funded matters. Will we get a measure that excludes transit riders in the North Bay and South Bay, or will our measure help everyone?
The revenue mechanism should be progressive. Will the measure be funded by a sales tax, which hurts working people, or will it be funded by those with the most ability to pay?
The amount of money raised needs to be enough to keep transit fully operational or the whole purpose is defeated. Some scenarios won’t even keep transit funding at the levels they are today, which we all know is already inadequate. How will MTC ensure the measure includes adequate funding for all transit operators?

Please speak up for regional transit funding at the MTC Transportation Revenue Measure Select Committee meeting on Monday, August 26, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.:

In-person: Bay Area Metro Center, 375 Beale Street in San Francisco, in the first floor Board Room
On Zoom
Or send public comments by email to [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 23.

Working together, we can save public transit in the Bay Area!

Disability Access Lifts Everyone Up

August 9, 2024/in Blog, Policy, Transit/by Zack Deutsch-Gross

The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law on July 26, 1990, after a decades-long fight by disability activists seeking equitable access to our civic commons. As we pass the 34th anniversary of this landmark legislation, we take a moment to appreciate the way ADA improvements benefit people of all abilities, particularly in transit. And it’s also a good time to reflect on how far we have to go.

Removing barriers, providing opportunities

The ADA has four sections, requiring equal opportunity from employers; access to state and local government programs, services, activities, and facilities as well as public transportation; access to public accommodations such as businesses; and provision of telephone relay services. The public transportation section requires service providers to buy accessible vehicles and provide paratransit services.

The ADA caused changes in building standards that have made our built environment — especially newer buildings, buses, and transit stations — more broadly accessible. Still, 34 years later, barriers remain for people with disabilities.

Everyone benefits from a more accessible world

Everyone benefits from improved access for those who most need it. If you’ve ever rolled a stroller or a bicycle down a curb cut, you’ve benefited from the ADA. If you’ve ever taken your bike to a BART platform using the elevator, you’ve benefited from the ADA.

People in the disability community say that the rest of us are temporarily able-bodied. We will all get older and appreciate a kneeling bus. Whether permanent or temporary, many of us will have times when we need a helping hand, and the ADA makes that possible.

We also all benefit indirectly from improving access. We benefit from the creativity, humor, insights, and company of our neighbors and friends when we build a world with curb ramps, accessible buses, station elevators, level train entries, and other improvements brought to us by the ADA.

We still have a long way to go

The disability justice ecosystem in California is woefully under-resourced, often excludes the voices of directly impacted people, and is underrepresented in the transportation planning space. While important progress has been made in the disability justice movement, accessible transportation remains stubbornly excluded and has shown little improvement in the past few decades. Living in a world that denies access to the nearly 25% of Californians who live with a disability denies all of us the valuable contributions of those community members. A substantial investment in the movement to focus on accessible transportation is necessary if we are to make progress for this community’s ability to meet their needs and live full lives.

Last year, we spoke with disability advocates from the Silicon Valley Independent Living Center and Community Resources for Independent Living and a planner from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission about how to make public transit more accessible. They pointed out that the ADA is “a floor, not a ceiling,” and accessible design must go farther. And they emphasized the importance of the disabled community having seats at the table when decisions are being made about transit access. As the community says, “Nothing about us without us.”

In Transform’s new strategic plan, we make a point of giving power and voice to those historically impacted by racist disinvestment in housing and transportation. Empowering and investing in the voices of the disability community is fundamental to our theory of change. And it’s also fundamental to a more accessible world for everyone.